By Jim Beers
It began a
century ago in an age of political frenzy, "progressive"
reforms,
and environmental concerns. For the first120 years, the Federal
government
held title only to forts, magazines, naval areas, and lands in recent
states
and territories that either State governments or citizens had not
claimed or
homesteaded in some fashion.
During the late 1800's and early 1900's national concerns and Federal
politicians focused on the "need" to preserve both
"nature" and natural
phenomenon unique to our nation. Simple divestiture of Federal
ownership of
vast western grazing lands and mountains slowed to a trickle at that
time.
Specific designations began with first public lands and then certain
private
properties for national preservation needs. The physical phenomena
and game
animals of Yellowstone were "saved" as a National Park.
The first Park
Rangers took off on a mission to stop hunting in the new
"Park" and never
looked back. Hunting, trapping, and even fishing (proactive
management of
either animals or plants) remains anathema to National Park policies and
employees to this day.
Concern for colonial nesting birds in Florida and elk in Oklahoma led to
National Wildlife Refuges at Pelican Island and Wichita Mountains.
Gifford
Pinchot, a man concerned with forest management directed the President
to
forestry needs and thus were the first National Forests designated for
multiple uses from timber production and wildlife to camping and
fishing.
Ninety years ago there were field employees and apprentice Washington
bureaucrats beginning to form the agencies we know today. US
Forest
Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the
Bureau
of land Management (this latter for all the undesignated Federal lands)
began at this time albeit the titles were different for many of them
then
and their missions were simple to describe.
The "need" for funding to operate these "national
treasures" and staff
offices and describe how much more was needed were contributing factors
to
passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that authorized the Federal
government
to collect taxes on income. This vast new source of a steady
stream of
money unleashed the "conservation" mission of the Federal
government (along
with other nascent Federal roles) hire what are today millions of
Federal
employees and untold numbers of contractors; oh yes, and to begin
acquiring
land. The agencies grew in numbers, in diversity of their
missions, and
into electioneering props for politicians. State agencies quite
naturally
mimicked them so State Parks and State fish and wildlife agencies, and
State
forests began to appear. Large Cities even created their
counterparts in
Parks, Woods, and Recreation Areas.
At the Federal level, due to the availability of large amounts of money,
trends began that grew beyond anyone's wildest dreams. National
Forests
proliferated everywhere. As Eastern, Southern, and Northern
forests were
harvested in large swaths folks cried out for the government to reforest
them and make them available for everyone. When Michigan "got"
a National
Forest, Minnesota and Wisconsin Federal politicians saw that they
"got" one
too. National Park expansion was based on a particularly unlimited
vision.
Battlefields, wild areas that had gone undeveloped, spots where
something
noteworthy occurred, homes, trails, native sites, panoramas, canyons,
springs, rocks, even sterile badlands were all ripe targets for the
Federal
saviors. National Wildlife Refuges were likewise not to be outdone
as they
incorporated the principle of preserving wetlands that were being
drained
(and that dried up during the 1930's drought) to preserve waterfowl and
other migratory birds for hunting and birdwatching. Duck Stamps
were
required of hunters and the dollars went into purchase of more National
Wildlife Refuges. Other dedicated acquisition funds were
established in
Washington and more are proposed today like the Get Outdoors Act for
more
acquisition on top of what is now annual acquisition to the Federal
estate.
Since the Bureau of Land Management already "owned" a big
chunk of the
nations' land, most of the steady stream of acquisitions that began in
the
1920's came either from outright Federal purchase of private property,
coercion of local governments to get either permission or permits for
developments like drainage projects, Federal condemnation (just the
threat
was all that was necessary), or outright seizure of family homes of
settlers
in families for generations as shamefully happened in the Appalachians
here
in Virginia for the Shenandoah National Park.
The natural resources of these lands were generally well managed up to
the
1960's with the exception of the National Parks that, due to an inward
mindset "genetically" implanted in the agency by early
rangers, never
managed to accept timber or grazing or wildlife or energy or plants or
anything else but human access control while priding itself on
prohibiting
everything that smacked of an enjoyable use for citizens. While
they
"studied" everything, they never managed anything as they
studiously ignored
the deterioration of the natural environment of the Parks and fought any
efforts to actively manage the resources they controlled.
National Forests were managed for "multiple use" so that
timber was cut and
cattle and sheep grazed and predators managed and recreation facilities
and
roads built to allow people from both near and far to enjoy themselves
in
areas where natural resources made lumber, game animals, fish, meat,
recreation of all sorts, and wool available. Funds from the sale
and use of
these resources helped to pay for the administration of the Forests.
National Wildlife Refuges were managed mainly for migratory bird
breeding,
migration, and wintering (the reason Congress authorized their purchase
in
legislation.) During the 1950's drainage of waterfowl breeding
wetlands in
the upper Midwest led to the beginning of Federal perpetual easement
offers
for wetlands on private property and the purchase of small and scattered
wetlands for incorporation into the Refuge system. In the beginning,
when
hunting seasons did not conflict with other things, Refuges were popular
hunting spots but recent years have seen reductions in hunting and real
attempts to prohibit all hunting.
All through the 1940's, 50's and right up until today, there are new
Refuges
and Parks authorized for purchase by Congress each year. On a rare
occasion
there may not be one or the other but unless there is a Depression, 2 to
5
or 6 each year are common. Refuges and Parks are declared as when
Alaskan
lands were given to the State. One such is the Arctic Refuge with
all the
unmeasured oil under it's surface and all the controversy in Washington
as
we pay $50 per barrel for oil from nations that do not wish us well. New
National Forests are a rarity but as with old Parks and Refuges,
round-outs,
additions, and "emergencies" (like a mall proposed next to the
Manassas
Battlefield a few years ago) are phenomena unto themselves that steadily
increase the Federal estate. The total acreages involved are in the
hundreds
of millions even forgetting about the Federal lands that still perk
under
the Bureau of Land Management today.
But all this changed radically since the early 1970's. In that
most recent
period of political turmoil (Vietnam), "progressive" reforms
(abortion,
sexual license, gun control, etc.), and environmental concerns
(Endangered
Species, Marine Mammal Protection, Animal Welfare, Wilderness, UN CITES,
Federal environmental laws, animal rights lawsuits, [space is limited so
I
will stop here]); Federal land acquisition and control took a grotesque
turn.
Agencies began to claim new authorities. Parks claimed "viewsheds"
and the
"right" to close heavily used State highways and lesser access
roads to
private property. National Forests reduced and even eliminated
forest
management, timber harvest, and grazing. Entire areas were made
off limits
by road closures and road destruction. Rural communities
disappeared as
hunting and logging and fishing became problematic, but conversely
National
Forest employees enjoyed the cheaper housing this made available and the
solitude they cherished. Nureau of Land Management employees began
to claim
native ecosystems, desertification, and indicator species as reasons to
restrict grazing, mining, and other uses. Refuges began to tout
themselves
as proper venues to restore "native ecosystems" and they began
to disavow
dikes and water management and waterfowl hunting that were the original
justifications for acquisition. Then all of these agencies
convinced
Congress to require entrance fees or permit fees because each year they
claimed a bigger maintenance deficit, or employee need, or operational
need,
or equipment need, or endangered species need, or law enforcement need,
or
on and on. The fact that this )like Wilderness) reduced access to
the poor,
the elderly, and others was of no concern to the bureaucrats. The
agencies
and field stations increased staffing, funding, and "missions"
each and
every year. "Native ecosystems", "invasive
species", "keystone species",
"biosphere reserves", "species of concern",
"environmental education" and
other new age terms jumped from the pages of environmental extremist
publications and found their way into Federal Budget Justifications and
Briefs for lawsuits before friendly judges. And the numbers and
acreages of
federal units increased each and every year.
New employees were no longer trained in or sympathetic to the active
management of natural resources. Many got their positions under
the new,
lax hiring and promotion standards because of environmental and animal
rights organizations that wielded more and more influence in the
agencies.
This has changed not only the way the areas are managed and how visitors
are
viewed but also the kinds of areas added to the systems and the way they
are
used to stop energy development, ranching, or sports like hunting and
fishing.
Coincident over the last thirty years was not only the growth and power
of
the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals in the agencies
but
also the emergence of new Federal land acquisition "Partners."
Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, and Ducks
Unlimited have evolved from private efforts to improve natural resources
on
private lands to controlling lands sold to quasi-Federal entities with
the
active participation of Federal agencies that give them tax breaks,
grants,
and then even buy lands from them at a profit. When you realize
their close
working relationship with groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Wilderness Society and their great success at raising
money
from endowments, investments, and fund raising; you have very powerful
private players who, like the Defenders of Wildlife working with the US
Fish
and Wildlife Service to spread wolves throughout the country, are
practically rogue Federal entities unto them selves.
Overlay all this with the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and you
have
the additional Federal tool of designating key areas of Federal
ownership as
no-use, no-management of any kind areas that are accessible to only a
few
citizens. These are areas where wildlife numbers decrease,
biodiversity is
reduced, revenues are non-existent, fires burn hotter (destroying even
soil), and firefighting is next to impossible - all because the unused
grass
and trees mature into simple habitats and animals find less food and
fire
fuel grows unchecked until too late. Environmental extremists
organizations
look to these Wilderness Areas as future building blocks for Wildlands
Projects and future Wildlife Corridors in the next generation of Federal
land acquisition and land closures meant to evacuate private property
and
citizens from ever-widening areas of the nation. Sprinkle in
bureaucratic
use of Critical Habitats for endangered species claimed by cooperating
"scientists" and the use of United Nations wetland and
biosphere treaty
targets across the US and you have the building blocks for even more
future
expansion of the Federal estate and reduction of private property and
rural
Americans. Other steps leading in this direction are the recent
Roadless
Rules and Executive Orders that deny access to much needed energy
resources,
or grazing allotments, or "public" lands. This is often done
for purely
political purposes and the benefit of politicians pandering to urban
elites
far away and unharmed by such actions.
Federal Easements that encumber private property have become
increasingly
common for everything from "native ecosystems" (a
bureaucratically contrived
concept) to overt Federal bureaucratic efforts to frustrate private land
development and decrease land values in areas targeted for future
acquisition by Federal agencies or their quasi-private surrogates like
The
Nature Conservancy. This latter organization has grown to a net
worth of
hundreds of millions and scandal (just like their Federal agency
partners)
now stalks them. In the meantime ranchers go out of business,
lumber mills
close down, and families and rural communities blow away. This is
covered
up by forecasts of tourism that are as phony as the reasons for closing
the
lands in the first place.
This gloomy picture is really just an attempt to provide a clear
snapshot of
the origin, current status, and probable future of Federal land
acquisition
and non-management that strips our taxes while not beginning to properly
care for these lands but far worse strips all of us of our rights and
national economy more each year. What can be done?
The President is in charge of these agencies and therefore the Federal
lands
(in spite of what most bureaucrats think.) The Congress is in
charge of any
and all money that they get or generate. State governments are the
primary
authority over all the plants and animals on all but a tiny portion of
all
"Federal" lands. While Federal land managers pay no
taxes, their decades
old smokescreen of paying other funds to local governments to maintain
roads
and schools has been a fraud in all but the first couple of years.
Federal
landowners are no different than other landowners in most regards.
The way
Federal bureaucrats use one of the very few Federal enclaves where a
State
has no jurisdiction (Yellowstone) to impose wolves on the western States
that all rejected them. This is a clear example of the corrupt
nature of
this Federal estate's uses for harmful purposes by a dangerously
powerful
central government.
First, we need to elect Federal, State, and local politicians that
understand the problem that not only these Federal agencies'
landholdings
create but also all of the losses to communities, the economy, citizens,
and
freedom that these lands cause by remaining in Federal ownership.
Second,
we need to start discussing and proposing the unmentionable.
DIVESTITURE.
For many good reasons, not the least of which would be the revenue to
the
Treasury and a real, long-term boost to the national economy we should
offer
many, if not most, landowners with easements on their property the
opportunity to buy them back for what the government paid them or former
owners. Likewise we should stop subsidizing these quasi-private
organizations that masquerade as public agencies while they buy and ease
lands to resell much of it to the government at a large profit.
Then we
should have Congress form a temporary office to analyze the land
holdings of
the four large Federal land agencies (Forest Service, National Park
Service,
US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management) and
recommend
two approaches (for Congress' decision) to reduce the land holdings of
each
agency by 10?, 20?, 30?, 40? or more percent. Whether by Unit or
piecemeal
or out west or unused or most profitable (to the government) or whatever
criteria are best - let it be laid out for all of us and the Congress to
evaluate and decide. To be honest, if you reduced the Federal
estate by
half, the dollars being spent on it could be reduced. Also a
better job of
operations and maintenance could be conducted on roads, resource
management,
better access, etc., etc. But perhaps most of all land would no
longer be a
source of untold mischief or a threat to our way of life, traditions,
and
cultures. Federal land managers could be converted back to natural
resource
managers that protect our heritage and manage our natural resources
without
destroying our form of government and our very society. The
benefits from
such a move would fill pages once you consider it. It can be done
and the
first step is to understand and believe.
All of those Federal lands closed off, unmanaged, and of no benefit to
the
people of this great nation should be returned to or placed in private
ownership to grow families, communities, and natural bounties instead of
being inaccessible pawns for those taking away our freedoms today and
planning to take away even more of our freedoms tomorrow.
Jim Beers
28 August 2004
This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net