In Virginia the Manassas Battlefield National Park has prevented the
improvement of the two State highways through the Park for years. Now the
Federal government proposes to close the two highways. Commuters and local
drivers have been disadvantaged for years and now their displacement will be
complete. Would this battlefield be any better managed by the State
government or even a private contractor who would be powerless to claim
surrounding lands or the access of drivers using public roads?
As the US Fish and Wildlife Service buys new refuges by promising to keep
hunting open and then close hunting after they get Congressional approval
(Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge) they help destroy hunting. As
they tell Arkansas duck hunters that duck hunting in Arkansas may have to be
"regulated" (i.e. restricted) because of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
"discovery" they assist the radical anti-hunting organizations steady
constriction of hunting. Since most National refuges were authorized by
Congress for waterfowl habitat because of the strong desire to maintain
huntable waterfowl populations, should refuges be closed and transferred as
hunting is restricted as happens with military bases? When refuges that
were purchased with the clear intent to provide hunting, fishing, and
trapping no longer provide these things, should they be closed? When
Federal Refuge personnel are opponents of hunting, fishing, and trapping;
how do they differ from Defense or military personnel who are opponents of
war? How is it that we condone the switch of such lands from wild plant and
animal uses to no-management, no-use enclaves without Congressional
authorization? Could we switch military bases and personnel from their
current duties to anti-war activist centers simply because the Secretary of
Defense and the generals said so? I don't think so.
How about the National Forests? As they become Wilderness Areas of no use
or management, as they become no-timber-use and no-timber management areas,
as they no longer generate revenue, as they become fire hazards to the
States and communities where they exist, as they no longer provide hunting
due to predators and restrictions, as they no longer allow stocking of
desirable fish species, as they prohibit dogs and horses and camping and all
manner of uses, as they close access roads, as they force out grazing and
ranchers.., at what point do they reach the redundancy level of a military
base that no longer provides the purpose for which it was created? What
would be the effect of transfer to State ownership? Well for starters,
State politicians would provide management, use, and revenue or they would
be voted out of office - try that with the Federal politicians. For that
matter, what would be wrong with private ownership? Home building, roads,
logging, big game, ranches, strong local communities, control of the
politicians that control the area, lower lumber prices, families, a stronger
economy all sound a lot better to me.
The lands under the Bureau of Land Management (the biggest acreage) have
been redundant for years. They originally remained in Federal ownership to
provide grazing and hunting and fishing and mining and roads to citizens in
an environment where 19th century living dictated a sparse population would
live forevermore. That is no longer the case. Placing those lands, in
whole or in part under State ownership (where State politicians must of
necessity be responsive or hit the road, unlike their Federal cousins) or
even better under private ownership would instantly create an economic boom
authorization? Could we switch military bases and personnel from their
current duties to anti-war activist centers simply because the Secretary of
Defense and the generals said so? I don't think so.
How about the National Forests? As they become Wilderness Areas of no use
or management, as they become no-timber-use and no-timber management areas,
as they no longer generate revenue, as they become fire hazards to the
States and communities where they exist, as they no longer provide hunting
due to predators and restrictions, as they no longer allow stocking of
desirable fish species, as they prohibit dogs and horses and camping and all
manner of uses, as they close access roads, as they force out grazing and
ranchers.., at what point do they reach the redundancy level of a military
base that no longer provides the purpose for which it was created? What
would be the effect of transfer to State ownership? Well for starters,
State politicians would provide management, use, and revenue or they would
be voted out of office - try that with the Federal politicians. For that
matter, what would be wrong with private ownership? Home building, roads,
logging, big game, ranches, strong local communities, control of the
politicians that control the area, lower lumber prices, families, a stronger
economy all sound a lot better to me.
The lands under the Bureau of Land Management (the biggest acreage) have
been redundant for years. They originally remained in Federal ownership to
provide grazing and hunting and fishing and mining and roads to citizens in
an environment where 19th century living dictated a sparse population would
live forevermore. That is no longer the case. Placing those lands, in
whole or in part under State ownership (where State politicians must of
necessity be responsive or hit the road, unlike their Federal cousins) or
even better under private ownership would instantly create an economic boom
in the west and an explosion of freedom as an increasingly oppressive
Federal presence would lighten considerably. Who could even question the
desirability of State or private owners managing the natural resources of
these lands far better than the remote Federal bureaucrats serving national
agendas of no-use, no-access, and no-management? Imagine for a moment the
opportunities throughout the west for ranch improvements, city and town job
creations, for kids to find work where they grow up, for schools and taxes
at the local level where local control can be exerted.
Finally, consider the revenue to the Federal government for the sale of
lands. Think deficit and your tax bill. Think of the potential for local
taxes. Taxes that, like lands transferred to State and local ownership, we
control locally. Think of the change in the national rural/urban balance of
power (the red/blue county map) and what it would mean for amendment of the
Endangered Species Act, or taking without compensation, or new Treaties or
Conventions with the UN. Think of these things and smile.
This could all be done like military base closings by keeping what we need
for truly legitimate national purposes. The other stuff, you know the stuff
that allows the Boston apartment dweller and the L.A. commuter to dictate to
eastern Oregon or West Virginians, why not put it up for closure and
transfer and let Congress take a look at it, just like these base closings.
What is needed is politicians that realize funds absorbed by these lands are
every bit as precious as military funds. Politicians are the ones that must
control and direct the bureaucrats. What we need is leadership that bites
bullets instead of catering to the whims of various and sundry groups in
order to get reelected. Like the Marines we need a few good men.
Jim Beers
23 May 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net
