Thanks for the great summary of the issue Brian. The federally managed forest reserves have been in place for more than 125 years. I won’t argue they have always been well managed, multiple use being a contentious principle, but I will argue that we should not entrust stewardship solely to each of the states. California will ban all human use. Montana will stock grizzlies like trout. Idaho will cut all the cedar that is left and dig for rare earths everywhere. We should look at fixing the current process not gamble our future. Back in the old days, when I was a kid, congress ensured the lands were used for human benefit. Since the NEPA, NESA and other enviro controls biased the system it now cares more about owls than people. This is what needs fixed.
Bill, I think 125 years is stretching it. FLPMA only passed in 1976, and before that you could homestead and set up a mining grub steak on any of these lands.
I also object to these lands being called our “birthright.“ All federal lands were meant for disposal until the liberals took it in 1976 and froze land titles.
The forest preserves were first established in 1891 and steadily expanded for several years. The idea was to create a long term legacy benefit for the
American people. You are correct that got screwed up in the 1970s with the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA 1970, the National, National Forest Management Act NMFA 1976 and the Endangered Species Act ESA 1973.
These laws radically altered the mission of the agencies entrusted with our lands.
I agree with Theo Wold. It’s a very bad idea. Developers are already gobbling up every square inch of farmland in the Treasure Valley and turning it into massive housing tracts. Just yesterday Nampa approved a nearly 1500 home development (with 3- and 4-story multi-family units) on 78 acres near Ustick and Can Ada Rd. When they get done, it will be wall-to-wall houses and even more gridlock. Just imagine that throughout Idaho. No thanks.
This issuse goes back to the Articles of Confederation and western expansion.
The land was held and governed by a territoial Governor who was also the top military commander. That problem was either intentionally neglected or ignored when the Constitution was brought into being and became the governing document of the United States.
Under expansion, the territories had means of "disposal" of lands under the previous plan as they were settled and became states.
At this point, DC, which is supposedly "not to exceed 10 square miles" essentially owns, controls and manages millions and millions of acres of land that by rights, should have been made available to settlers and business people and the American people who have the gumption, vision and will to take it on and make it productive and profitable and beneficial.
This is a complicated situation and very few have a decent handle on it, including most politicians.
The LAST thing we want is a simple "High bidder takes all' sale of public land. It would be unfair with disastrous results.
For a substantial historical and legal history of this topic - which has become a very current issue - see The History of Federal Lands in the United States: and the Violence of Faction by Idaho's own Ron Nielsen.
“Idaho and other western states might sell public lands to private developers, depriving millions of people access to wilderness areas where they have hiked, hunted, fished, and grazed for generations.”
Why should “millions of people“ have free or at least subsidized access for hunting, hiking, fishing, or anything else? This is a wasteful public policy.
Further, the primary reason that the public lands issue is so difficult is because people see things in black-and-white. Like completely private, or completely public. There is no reason why the federal government couldn’t sell off all the land, but retain an easement for public access for certain uses, which those users would have to pay for in conjunction with the underlying servient estate owners.
Nope. The rape, plunder and pillage politicians will ruin what Theodore Roosevelt preserved.
Thanks for the great summary of the issue Brian. The federally managed forest reserves have been in place for more than 125 years. I won’t argue they have always been well managed, multiple use being a contentious principle, but I will argue that we should not entrust stewardship solely to each of the states. California will ban all human use. Montana will stock grizzlies like trout. Idaho will cut all the cedar that is left and dig for rare earths everywhere. We should look at fixing the current process not gamble our future. Back in the old days, when I was a kid, congress ensured the lands were used for human benefit. Since the NEPA, NESA and other enviro controls biased the system it now cares more about owls than people. This is what needs fixed.
Bill, I think 125 years is stretching it. FLPMA only passed in 1976, and before that you could homestead and set up a mining grub steak on any of these lands.
I also object to these lands being called our “birthright.“ All federal lands were meant for disposal until the liberals took it in 1976 and froze land titles.
The forest preserves were first established in 1891 and steadily expanded for several years. The idea was to create a long term legacy benefit for the
American people. You are correct that got screwed up in the 1970s with the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA 1970, the National, National Forest Management Act NMFA 1976 and the Endangered Species Act ESA 1973.
These laws radically altered the mission of the agencies entrusted with our lands.
I agree with Theo Wold. It’s a very bad idea. Developers are already gobbling up every square inch of farmland in the Treasure Valley and turning it into massive housing tracts. Just yesterday Nampa approved a nearly 1500 home development (with 3- and 4-story multi-family units) on 78 acres near Ustick and Can Ada Rd. When they get done, it will be wall-to-wall houses and even more gridlock. Just imagine that throughout Idaho. No thanks.
This issuse goes back to the Articles of Confederation and western expansion.
The land was held and governed by a territoial Governor who was also the top military commander. That problem was either intentionally neglected or ignored when the Constitution was brought into being and became the governing document of the United States.
Under expansion, the territories had means of "disposal" of lands under the previous plan as they were settled and became states.
At this point, DC, which is supposedly "not to exceed 10 square miles" essentially owns, controls and manages millions and millions of acres of land that by rights, should have been made available to settlers and business people and the American people who have the gumption, vision and will to take it on and make it productive and profitable and beneficial.
This is a complicated situation and very few have a decent handle on it, including most politicians.
The LAST thing we want is a simple "High bidder takes all' sale of public land. It would be unfair with disastrous results.
For a substantial historical and legal history of this topic - which has become a very current issue - see The History of Federal Lands in the United States: and the Violence of Faction by Idaho's own Ron Nielsen.
https://www.amazon.com/history-federal-lands-United-States/dp/B0DXBYGS8J
Thank you again for such a thorough and thoughtful treatment of a very imortant topic affecting all Idahoans Brian.
“Idaho and other western states might sell public lands to private developers, depriving millions of people access to wilderness areas where they have hiked, hunted, fished, and grazed for generations.”
Why should “millions of people“ have free or at least subsidized access for hunting, hiking, fishing, or anything else? This is a wasteful public policy.
Further, the primary reason that the public lands issue is so difficult is because people see things in black-and-white. Like completely private, or completely public. There is no reason why the federal government couldn’t sell off all the land, but retain an easement for public access for certain uses, which those users would have to pay for in conjunction with the underlying servient estate owners.
There are lots of solutions.
A BIG FAT "NO"