More federal overreaching
Spend some time on federal land . . . and look with a careful eye . . . and you’ll get a small glimpse of why the federal government is bankrupt.
I love the outdoors and spend much of my spare time roving on foot though federal, state, and municipally-owned public lands.
Yesterday, I returned to the Sam Braxton National Recreation Trail in the Pattee Canyon National Recreation Area near Missoula. This is a 3.5 mile loop enclosing some cross-country ski trails. The tract is within Lolo National Forest, which, like other national forests, is owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (The U.S. Forest Service, as some people like to remind us, was created by legislation signed into law by Teddy Roosevelt — but its location in the Department of Agriculture is a vestige of one of TR’s reasons: national forests were to be big federal tree farms.)
Anyway, it difficult to see why the federal government owns the Pattee Canyon land or why the Sam Braxton trail merits federal taxpayer maintenance. The area is pleasant enough, and makes a good preserve or park, but it is quite ordinary for western Montana and its recreational values are of almost entirely of local interest. Unlike the national parks or, say, the path into Blodgett Canyon (part of the Bitterroot National Forest west of Hamilton) the Sam Braxton trail is utterly devoid of unusual views, characteristics, or environmental values — essentially just a nice walk in the woods.
Lest some zealot infer from what I’ve said that I want to mow down Pattee Canyon and put up condos, let me be clear: I’m all for preserving this and other nice walks in the woods. But the State of Montana, the City of Missoula, or a private land trust would preserve it just as well, and neither the State of Montana, the city, nor any land trusts are laboring under debts of $12 trillion-and-counting.
Leave it to a smaller entity, and your fake nonchalance aside, the land will be privatized. That is the whole point of localizing control of public lands -to mismatch smaller governmental entities with large private power.
Several years ago, your cohort Tom Keating put forth a plan to bring federal lands under state control. As private correspondence between him and some Alaska businessmen with similar plans revealed, the “ultimate purpose of the plans is to privatize the lands.” Because Keating is not too bright, his letter made it to the public record in hearings at that time.
Might we see your private correspondence on the matter? You hosted astroturf logging front groups on your old radio show. Care to tell us who was behind them?
Rob:
You are absolutely correct in your assessment and your question is most relevant.
The other issues aside, you ask Why it is not in state or local hands.
The reason is that everytime it is suggested that lands with this character be transfered to State or Local control the State and Local contol have a cow. They team up with environmental groups to put the fear of “privitization” in everyone.
Based on my experience in these matters I have found one thing to be the major driving force in opposition, at least from the State and Local jurisdictions.
They currently get to use it for what they believe is free. The cost is certainly greatly subsidized. Why would you give up free for something that will cost you money?
Contrary to Mark T’s rant here, the Federal Govt can transfer land to the States with covenants that assure in can not be sold into private hands, or developed, in perpetuity.
There is absolutely no reason these lands couldn’t be transfered to the State, except the power of the lobbyists who oppose it.
I will take exception to your characterization of why Teddy R. pushed for the National Forest System or why the Forest Service was placed in the Dept of Ag.
He did not seek tree farms. He was in favor of active scientifially based management. His good buddy and follower of German forestry practices, Gifford Pinchot was the one pushing the idea. Both of them were big time members of the “Progressive” faction of the Elephant Club at the time.
The Forest Service started out in Interior but Gifford pushed for moving it due to the corruption in Interior. The agency needed more “independence” from outside influence if it were to achieve its mission. Which was sustained flows of clean water and timber.
Perhaps a little nitpicky but figured the “rest of the story” was worth telling.
Best to You All
JAC
Rob:
P.S.: I forgot to mention that I think you should add Maclay Flat and Blue Mtn on your list of lands that should be owned and administered locally.
JAC – do you know Keating or the movement he helped promote? It was about privatization. They said so. We are not paranoid.
BTW – the commons are commons for all people, including those who come from New York or Arizona to use them. To put them under redneck control would not serve the greater good.
Define “redneck.”
According to Wiki
In addition to socioeconomic class, redneck can be imputed to mean low education, heavy reliance on masculine status symbols like big trucks and guns, and, of course, right wing politics.
Jeff Foxworthy has done scholarly work on this, and is widely cited.
In addition, there is this:http://www.costaricapages.com/panama/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/redneck1.jpg
Thanks for asking.
Mark T:
Keating was not the brains behind the “divestiture of federal lands” movement. How do I know? Because I have been in the middle of it for years and I don’t even know who this Keating fellow, or fella, is.
It has been around for decades and there have been many, many players.
Read my post dipstick (that would be a redneck name for pencil neck). Do you see anywhere in there where I am advocating turning those lands over to the private sector? Did you not read the part where I said the Fed’s could prevent future transfer in their original conveyance documents?
There is absolutelty no reason these lands can not be turned over to the state and then the local governments. Except no body wants to pay the real cost to manage these lands and the activities that occur upon them. Its all about Free Cookies.
Mark T:
P.S.: There is no such thing as the “commons” or “the greater good”.
That is nothing more than an illusion created by the marxists and then the progressives to justify their taking of individual liberty and rights away from those who don’t make up the “greater community”.
JAC- The movement by Tom Keating, a state senator from Billings who held office for many, many years until he was term-limited, was in the mid-90’s. Conrad Burns got caught up in it – there were two initiatives: Keating, at the state level was advocating that state-held lands be put up for sale. Burns, at the federal level, was advocating transfer of federal lands to the states.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out them game, but to be clear, Keating forwarded to me a letter he had received from some Alaska people involved in the same movement, and it said “The ultimate objective, of course, is to privatize these lands.”
That letter was put into the public record during hearings in Helena. As I said, Keating was none too bright.
So we don’t trust you. Got that? We know that deep in your hearts you do not believe in public lands.
Regarding management of the lands, what is to be gained by turning them over to state and local management agencies? I suppose if you covenant them to prevent privatization, it would be OK in terms of preservation of the commons. But Montana’s federal lands are owned not by Montana, but by all of us. Montana has more than its share of rednecks, and our efforts to keep them and their machines off of pristine land would face even harder opposition.
P.S. You’re not the first Randian/Objectivist/Libertarian to come up with this idea that there is no common good or commons. It is blatantly false on its face, and a ridiculous notion. Of course there are such things. Rand herself drove on public roads.
Mark T:
As I said, there have been many attempts to transfer federal lands in various ways to the States. There have also been attempts to sell some of those lands.
And these were before Mr. Keating or Conrad Burns ever got mixed up in it.
Public roads and public lands are not “the commons” as the concept was put forth by its creator. The term has been adopted by you marxists to try and create some mythical belief that the people own this land. They do not.
The Federal Govt owns the land. And you obviously don’t control the Federal Govt. Nor does any group regardless of how numerous. If you don’t believe me then get some of your friends together and try to start living on the “commons” and see where it gets you.
The reason for transfering ownership to the States is simple. First you eliminate the management cost from the federal treasury. Second, those closest and usually those who benefit the most have more sway in how its run, but they also pick up the cost.
Some federal lands do in fact have a broad federal value, if you want to assign such to the public. But the lands mentioned by Rob and I in this post are NOT among them.
Since you are the one arguing that “greater good” exists and that the “commons” are real I challenge you to prove it. Why don’t you start with trying to define each .
Oh, and try to use something resembling logic and reason to explain it. Your standard “I’m right because your a Randian” doesn’t cut the mustard.
Problem #1: I am not a Marxist. I am a Markist. For you to call me a Marxist and then tell me not to refer to you as Randian is rather humorous.
Assumes Jerry Seinfeld voice: “You don’t even know what a Marxist is, do you!”
And, as I said, you have to understand that with public lands, we don’t trust you. You don’t believe in them, so when you attempt to justify transferring control of “lesser value” lands to the state and local level, we smell a ratfuck in the planning stages.
Public roads and public lands are not “the commons” as the concept was put forth by its creator. The term has been adopted by you marxists to try and create some mythical belief that the people own this land. They do not.
The Federal Govt owns the land. And you obviously don’t control the Federal Govt. Nor does any group regardless of how numerous. If you don’t believe me then get some of your friends together and try to start living on the “commons” and see where it gets you.
At this point the Federal Government is almost entirely dominated by large multinational corporations, so you’re right that we don’t control it. That’s a direct result of campaign finance laws and tax policy. But even in times of less corruption, it is always a fight to maintain control of the commons. The problem is that we are many and dispersed, while corporations are highly concentrated power centers. Public opinion is subject to malevolent manipulation, people are busy, fickle and often uninformed. Democratic governance is a risky proposition, and the notion of how public will becomes public policy is complex at best. Often it leads t bad outcomes, as when the people of California recently voted to strip rights from a whole class of people. It can be messy.
Democratic governance requires occasional balloting, but also an avoidance of excesses and endurance of wide swings in popular opinion – maintaining steady-as-you-go rule. For this reason we have made it very difficult to transfer public assets to private use (just as we have made it hard to alter our constitution). We have also made it difficult shift maintenance of assets from higher to lower levels. You might say this is unresponsive, but it leaves us with a system that is not as susceptible to manipulation as it would otherwise be. You say your motives are pure. They’re surely not, but no matter. Your ilk is having its day in the sun – we only hope that when you of the far right recede again into the shadows, as you did in the post-WWII era, that you will have not done too much damage.
The reason for transferring ownership to the States is simple. First you eliminate the management cost from the federal treasury. Second, those closest and usually those who benefit the most have more sway in how its run, but they also pick up the cost.
Six of one … management at a higher level prevents abuse by localized private power – say, for instance, some entity like … Plum Creek? How hard would it be for that company to roll over the town of Lincoln? A bribe here, an official filmed in flagrante delicto with a prostitute there, and lo and behold the town fathers vote to give the land away.
In the real world, power meets power,and popular power is best expressed by larger governmental units, which is why private power always wants more local control. (It’s also why these same forces hate trial lawyers. They give common people an avenue to sue them.)
Some federal lands do in fact have a broad federal value, if you want to assign such to the public. But the lands mentioned by Rob and I in this post are NOT among them.
I don’t beleive your motives are pure. After all, you do not believe in commons, the rights attached to which I have outlined above.
“Greater good”, unlike the “commons” is a broader, more ethereal concept, a little more hard to define and subject to wide debate. Currently we are talking about health care, for example. It’s painfully obvious that those countries that have nationalized their systems enjoy better care, universal care, and at less cost than us. Changing to their system would yield benefits that would be shared by a large number of us, perhaps 90%.
That 10% of us is making huge profits off the current system when 90% could be doing better by changing … there is a line in there somewhere, on one side of which is private greed, on the other is greater good. It exists.
It’s a never ending debate, and that’s a bit anecdotal, but does serve to illustrate that the idea of greater good points to concrete outcomes that benefit more people than they hurt, and that therefore, it does exist.