
Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, sparking rallies - tim_sw
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/public-lands-sell-congress-bureau-management-chaffetz
======
blinkingled
> To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land
> creates a “multiplier problem”, where a small parcel of land turned private
> can cut off access for many. That’s what happened in Coronado national
> forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of
> public property were turned into state trust land.

> “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners
> now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing
> public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said.

Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to
ensure public access to public parts.

~~~
molmalo
Part of me says "It's bad to block access to public land". but the other part
says: "if they want an access, so they can hunt, then I wish the block to
continue existing."

~~~
blinkingled
Lol, yes - I don't know why I stopped short of saying exactly that. Definitely
not a hunting fan myself.

~~~
erikpukinskis
In many places where we have removed apex predators, hunting is necessary to
keep ecosystems healthy.

I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how
many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate
wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can
either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C)
wipe out all animal habitat altogether.

Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the
land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of
plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so
sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really
really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.

~~~
pvaldes
> hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy

This is a common cliché that would merit some discussion. 'Healthy' is a
problematic concept to apply to a machine and ecosystems are like machines in
many senses. A 'healthy ecosystem' in this context is often a synonym of
'convenient for hunters'.

Ecosystems without apex predators are more unstable but not necesarily in
danger. A breed colony of emperor penguins or a small lake in winter after the
resident couple of loons migrate is not an ecosystem about to collapsing or
that must be fixed. Many desertic, arctic and pelagic areas are free of apex
predators 340 days/year. Apex predators quit and recolonize areas constantly.
Is a natural process.

If preys can fly/run away and are free to quit the area the ecosystem will be
fine.

If not, a smaller predator will be quickly 'hired' for the job. Could be a
desert fox, a parasite or a bacteria, but the ecosystem is constantly fixing
itself and will be quickly rebuild with the remaining items.

Hunting can be a temporary solution, but is neither the only answer to this
problem nor the best necessarily (and is an obstacle to the recolonization of
the area for apex predators in the future, that should be the real goal here).
You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals,
creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...

~~~
gambiting
At the moment, US is having a _massive_ problem with deer. And the major
reason why that is, is that we've eliminated most of their natural predators,
and lobbied very aggressively against hunting. So now you have millions of
deer destroying crops in US, but of course any time anyone mentions culling,
people immediately get aggressive about cruelty of hunting. I mean, I get
that, and I wish there was a better way, but deer are literally worse than
pests at this point.

[http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-
deer/](http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/)

~~~
douche
Guess what kind of places don't have problems with deer overpopulation? Places
with strong hunting cultures.

Besides, venison is delicious, lean meat. I know hundreds of people that hunt
deer religiously every November, and they are not jackass trophy hunters, they
are primarily hunting to fill their freezers.

~~~
maxerickson
Michigan tends to manage the deer herd in a way that keeps the population
high, to make hunting better.

A couple of aggressive seasons could dramatically lower the population without
impacting viability of the herd, but the state DNR won't do it because it
would impact license revenue and tourism.

------
lend000
The BLM owns a third of the land west of the Mississippi. Being public land
that is leased for both public and commercial uses, it's exceptionally poorly
managed, with overgrazing, soil destruction, and erosion being common
problems. This is one of those private property things that many on HN will
resist, but private property (especially farmland) is generally better
managed.

The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold
to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to
the National Parks Service.

Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1%
of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal
sensationalism.

~~~
prawn
I'm not from the US, but I love the landscapes there and visit fairly
frequently to hike and camp.

Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land?
e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM
areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that
the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general
point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely
private or NP use.

(Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP,
there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is
not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each
year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.)

I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the
reverse.

~~~
dchichkov
There are differences, for example flying ultralight aircraft (hang-gliders,
paragliders) is prohibited in the national parks.

Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is
different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in
private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for
recreational use.)

~~~
prawn
There is a great 99PI podcast about barbed wire, in case you haven't heard it.
Talks about the freedom to roam and the limitations that arose after the
American West was settled. I find those desert and grazing lands pretty
magical, so I can sympathise with the romantic ideals of travelling, camping
carefully, moving on, etc.

Devil's Rope: [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-
rope/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/)

------
trothamel
I tried to gain perspective of this size compared to the whole.

According to table 1-3 of
[https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf](https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf)
, there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of
the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area
of over 6 Californias.

~~~
turndown
Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for
public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as
roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few
can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the
public.

~~~
pzone
Who says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is
sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The
public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used
for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in
hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota.

The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."

~~~
orasis
Random fantastic pheasant hunting acres in North Dakota?

------
dragonbonheur
When this year is over, US citizens will hold the world record for protests
against their own government.

~~~
shostack
That's if we're allowed to continue protesting. The GOP just introduced bills
across many states to make it more difficult, including such things as a
felony and 5 years jail plus $7500 fine for blocking roads during protests
(impossible to have a large one without doing this). Land of the free _.

_ Some restrictions apply.

~~~
cpburns2009
It's one thing to protest peacefully. But it's completely different to protest
by infringing on the rights of other people to travel.

~~~
throwaway2048
Because 5 years in jail + felony conviction + $7500 fine is totally about
other people's right to travel, and not about hammering down public dissent.

~~~
cpburns2009
Is that the minimum or maximum penalty? If that's the minimum, it is
excessive. If that's merely the maximum, then for reference if you steal mail
(also a federal offense), the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison and
$250,000 which seems much worse to me. There has to be some deterrent to
prevent unruly protesters from forcibly preventing people from getting to work
and potentially being fired as a result.

------
ENTP
I'm upset and I'm not even American!

~~~
mickronome
Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad
idea, even economically.

~~~
pzone
Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which
is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting
around and not being used for much except random public access once every few
weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you
personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into
account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could
ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.

~~~
TYPE_FASTER
> What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available
> to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there,
> more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and
> empty.

I'd rather camp here:
[http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG](http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG)

It's a different experience from the parks.

~~~
prawn
I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something
special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked.
I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.

