Bundy Ranch Standoff

[BRUTE]

45% of California, 85% of Arizona belong to the federal government, according to some websites. similar in all western states. brute finds these numbers unreasonably high.

[Gilberto de Piento]

What is the appropriate percentage of land for the federal government to hold? I'm happy with the govt taking care of the land and allowing room for reasonable recreation and responsible resource extraction. If they sold it off it would just get bought up by rich people and everyone else would be left to fight over the scraps. It's good for people to have a place where they can dirt bag in a van and good for there to be some places that are just natural open space.

The welfare ranchers should pay their fair share just like everyone else. I always laugh at their "independence" when their business model only works with free/nearly free land.

[jennypenny]

That's a tough one. Commercial fishing mostly takes place in 'public' water. I'm not saying that the government should relinquish publicly-held lands. I just wonder if its use should be managed better. If we allowed chicken farmers to operate on public lands, would we be able to curtail factory farming? I would be in favor of that and would see it as a good use of public lands.

[nestbuilder]

As a former commerical fisherwoman I can assure you that at least in my experience, fishing in those public waters was highly regulated. And depending on the runs, you could be told you couldn't fish or that areas were off limits. I would also add that after the Boldt decision Native American fishing rights were formally recognized and actually honored. Many commerical fisher people have seen the boom bust cycle and the perilous drop in populations from poor management, short-sighted greed and habitat destruction. They certainly don't depend on the public giving up the sea for their personal gain or handouts from the government to maintain their unique culture and way of life.

[Gilberto de Piento]

I'm not a poultry expert but I don't think chickens will thrive living free-range in the desert.

Management is tough because "better" can mean a lot of things. I want to preserve a few places without signs of people. The Bundys want free grazing land. Others want to preserve endangered species (the desert tortoise is related to the Bundy drama). The Sierra Club is down with hiking but not mountain biking. The off roaders want to make trails everywhere. The shooters want to drop old cars and fridges out in the desert and recreate Fallujah. The miners want to extract metals and leave dangerous tailings with no regard for the future.

The job of the government is to mediate all of this and make sure everyone gets something (no one is totally happy). Government protection is needed because the free market has been shown to not be enough.

[jennypenny]

As I said, I'm hoping for better management -- not a free market solution. And of course I didn't intend to raise chickens in the desert.

I know the extent to which fishing is regulated and don't think that kind of regulation is bad in meat production. I think there is a way to manage the land better. I can agree with on that point and still think that the authorities handled the Bundy situation poorly. That kind of public mismanagement is why people lose trust in the government and don't want them owning/regulating more land.

We're having this discussion in Stepford right now. Our town, like many, owns 'preserved farmland'. In Stepford, they mostly grow corn on that land because it looks country-ish and is usually what was grown on those fields before. The discussion now is that if the town is going to spend money annually doing something with those fields anyway, is there a better use for them? Should we naturalize them? Develop bee and bird habitats? Use them for organic farming? Install solar farms?

I think this is a good discussion and one that we should be having on a national level as well. FYI ... most of the more right-leaning people in my world thought Trump's move giving that land back in Utah was a bad call. You wouldn't get knee-jerk pushback from that 'side'. I don't see why we (the public) can't agree on some scheme where (just an example) 1/3 is preserved for public use, 1/3 is preserved for agricultural use, and 1/3 is preserved for wind/solar power ... all managed properly so that we don't have swaths of solar panels across Badlands Nat'l Park.

[CS]

Personally, as a stakeholder in public lands, I'd like to see none of it developed. We don't need more industry. Very rapidly, these untouched lands are going to be the real wealth... more valuable than anything else.

Considering that we actually have enough for everyone right now, it feels ridiculous (to me) to even be having this discussion. The problem I see is not plundering the land for more, but rather learning to share what we have, i.e. corporations can pay their fair share of taxes for the infrastructure they make their money off of. Ditto for small businesses (the amount I'd be saving if working under that tax bill is downright ridiculously high - and I'm small change for a business).

Also, the argument that the Federal government owns too much land makes no sense to me. The short answer is 'so what?' The long answer is that this sounds like the same argument used to take the land away from the Indians: They didn't know how to use it, they didn't use it, etc. You get the point. The difference here is that there are 300+million stakeholders, many of whom are lawyers who know how to work the system. And thank goodness for that.

[Gilberto de Piento]

I thought "chickens in the desert" because I thought we were talking about federal lands in the west since that is where the controversy is. Most of those lands are high desert, alpine, very steep or otherwise difficult to access and develop with little in the way of ag land. Plenty of it is available for grazing and logging in general although I'm sure there are local places where someone would like to log or graze but can't for whatever reason.

There isn't a lot of fed land east of the Mississippi and only the hardest core of libertarians are arguing the Eastern lands should be sold off or otherwise managed as something other than parkland.

[jennypenny]

Sorry if I misunderstood.

[BRUTE]

What is the appropriate percentage of land for the federal government to hold?

this will depend on the political ideals of the beholder. in brute's eyes, the appropriate involvement of the government in anything is 0%. in communism, the percentage would be 100%. 85% in Arizona sounds a lot closer to communism than to what brute thinks makes sense.

property rights are tricky. there doesn't seem to be a framework that many humans agree on. brute finds the idea that all land belongs to the government unless they let citizens have it repulsive and morally wrong. it is like saying all humans are slaves unless given freedom.

to brute, putting anything under government control is admitting failure, and it should be a temporary and well thought-out measure, because government is inherently immoral, inefficient, and cancerous.

the whole Bundy fiasco is just another indication to brute that publicly managed land can't be managed well.

[C40]

There are tons of details that I don't know about the history of public lands relating to disputes like this Bundy one. I don't have a specific point in this post, just some observations.

I have spent a lot of time on U.S. public lands in the last couple years. A good deal of the land is public not because the government is hoarding it from people. It's because the land is of little use and in little demand. That's the case for a good deal of the public land in Arizona, and probably even more of the public land in Nevada (which is almost all public land).

I've been surprised how much animal grazing takes place in National Forests and BLM land. It's mostly cows, and in some places, sheep. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. On one hand, it's a way of making use of the natural vegetation that can grow in places that can't reasonably be farmed. But I also wonder what impact this grazing has on the plants and other animals - surely it is a significant impact. So, a great deal of this land is not nearly as wild or natural or unused by humans as one might imagine when seeing how much land is government-owned.

There is probably some ideal balance of mixed use for land like this - where it can be used by the different interested groups and fulfill their own individual wishes. (like the story about the two ladies who want the orange, where one of them only wants the peel, and one only wants the fruit inside), and this setup is WAY better than just letting or requiring ranchers, for example, to buy up all the land and then likely fence it off from all others. Problem is, politics get in the way, and then some groups use an all-or-nothing style of change.

The recent changes in Utah have been interesting. I was in Utah while it was being discussed, and sometimes heard the politician's comments on radio stations. It was obvious that they were snakes, being intentionally deceptive about what they were doing. So obviously, that just the way they did and communicated the change was a clear additional "fuck you" to those who didn't like it. Utah has so much great public land that, personally, I don't see it as a horrible thing that it is reduced. Problem is, it's hard to put these changes in long-term perspective. And, change with public lands often happen on a long time scale in order to minimize perceived impact by single generations, but accomplish big change in the direction the groups or politicians desire. So, even while I don't think it's a huge deal if Bear's Ears and Escalante get reduced, I can definitely see why some groups will oppose it strongly.

Escalante has some really really awesome things in it. Incredible little slot canyons, rocks formations, an awesome river canyon with huge arches over it. I hope those specific things, at the very least, are maintained and protected. It's also one of the best places to see the night sky clearly in the U.S. That alone may be worth keeping a large chunk of land government-owned and limiting any development and light-pollution.

[theanimal]

To clarify- Arizona is nowhere near 85%. It is at 38%. Nevada is the highest in the country at 79%. Most of it land managed by the BLM. Utah is at 62%, Alaska and Idaho are at ~61%.

For the country as a whole, 27% falls under the category of federal public lands.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

[theanimal]

I guess my situation is unique because for the past 3 years I have lived in an area that is essentially all public land. Everything in the surrounding area is managed by the National Park Service, BLM, the fish and wildlife service or the state, outside of the 129 acres of private property in the town in which I was living. The size of the area is hard to describe and numbers won't necessarily paint the whole picture, but we are talking about an area greater than 50,000 sq miles. Bigger than New York State. Outside of the varied villages and the 20,000 people or so that live within them, all of northern Alaska is public land. Most of it federally managed.

It's the same story as everywhere else. Miners complain because they feel like access is restricted and they are discriminated against. They'll move from creek to creek, leaving tailings and trash behind with no reprimand from the BLM. Hunters want greater access and the ability to use motorized vehicles off the road. Oil companies want to drill and the state wants to put in a natural gas pipeline.

But all of these activities are nonetheless permitted on public lands. You can mine. Oil companies do drill. And there are ample hunting opportunities throughout these areas. Not to mention other activities like logging and commercial fishing elsewhere.

The movement to state control has never been one that I've been a fan of because it seems like it would benefit a few to the detriment of many. Nobody is ever going to be completely happy under the current system, but everyone is still able to use it in some sense.

Most activities don't bother me that much, but cattle grazing on public lands is something that doesn't sit well with me. They shit everywhere, foul the water, crowd out local species and turn grasslands into deserts. I have no sympathy for the Bundys.

[BRUTE]

whoops, brute must've read the wrong number for Arizona. the 85% probably referred to Nevada.

somehow the western states are different. in many other states, the percentages are e.g. 0.8%, 2.8%, 7.3%, with 10% on the high end. in the west, the lowest number is Montana with around 30%, and up to 80-85% (depending on who measures what when) in Nevada, with an average of about 48%.

while brute would prefer 0% everywhere, some <10% public land doesn't seem that outrageous. but claiming on average 50% of all land and then completely Waco'ing it when humans aren't 100% satisfied with the decree just smells like military dictatorship to brute.

[theanimal]

Most of it is desert land though. It can't be used for traditional agriculture. Cattle grazing is inefficient since vegetation is so sparse. Some of it (like in Utah) holds minerals like uranium or gold. Others the terrain is full of mountains, canyons or other rough features. Would you rather it be privately held just to say the government doesn't own it? Even though in most cases it likely sees greater use now?

[nestbuilder]

@Brute
Not sure how mismanaging the Bundy response equates to mismanagement of public lands. The Bundys and then the fools who showed up at Malheur to cut barbed-wire, trash federal offices and put snipers up in a lookout could never even piece together a coherent argument for what they were trying to do other than waving around a mini constitution, talking about God's will and how they were victims of federal overreach.

The desert, or any land for that matter, is not empty. It is a hardy, but fragile and complex ecosystem that grazing damages(as do many other human-related activities). The amount of cow-poop fouling waterways on public lands(and then downstream to everyone else) is everywhere in the West. Not to mention denuding of the land. There are federal and private efforts across the West to work with ranchers and conservation groups to ranch better but that does not mean all lands are suitable and it does require ranchers to modify practices. Just because something was done a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that is how it should be done moving forward and certainly does not mean one is entitled to do it however they want.

I was raised in a place where approximately 1% of the land is federally held. That certainly does not make the place feel more free in anyway, in fact quite the opposite. The wall-to-wall corn is stunning for a Halloween horror flick but with modern-day farming practices where corn is planted inches apart and $500,000 combines are required and when the boom is on intelligent humans tear out the old wind-breaks planted during the Dust Bowl just to squeeze some more $, I guess I would rather have some public input in how that land is managed. Not to mention the chemicals used that blow and flow around to everyone as well as sucking the limited waterways and aquifer dry for a heavily subsidized "food" product that as a Nurse I am not sure truly benefits us all. I see the federal land agencies as deeply flawed and struggling to evolve in the modern era, but that is no reason to sell off publically held lands. It is pretty well documented that even if feds sell to states for greater local oversight, that land usually ends up in private hands due to budgetary pressures of the state.

Many peoples within the U.S. have had to adapt and change over history for a variety of reasons. Many folks don't ever get a say in having to change, they simple grab their bootstraps and adapt because that is what has to be done to survive. When I hear the Bundy-folks whine about federal overreach, what I hear is anger about Change and channeling that anger into fighting Don Quixote-style without really understanding or appreciating the depth and complexity of that change. It is not just about cows, cowboys or turtles. It reminds me a bit of my second cousin who owns a huge coal mining company. He will die thinking he is doing best by coal-miners by getting Trump to deregulate and kneecap environmental protections to the hilt even while he admits the coal-market, independent of regulation, is pretty well toast at this point. I keep thinking, if he really does give a shit about his coal-mining roots and the people of that community, he would spend his $ on retraining folks for viable professions that have a chance in the future and overall support a more healthy community. Instead, he has a serious axe to grind with Obama and the Environmentalists as they are his perceived reasons for Change, and will focus his great wealth on pursuing that vendetta 'til his dying day.

Finally, I just cannot wrap my head around the hypocrisy of Bundy-style "patriots" thinking they have more of a right to the land then say Native Americans. If anyone should be getting land back or unfettered access...

[BRUTE]

Would you rather it be privately held just to say the government doesn't own it? Even though in most cases it likely sees greater use now?

yes, privately held, or, if truly uninteresting, unowned. brute's goal isn't to maximize use of land, but optimal usage. brute believes that free markets are better at achieving this.

[BRUTE]

The amount of cow-poop fouling waterways on public lands(and then downstream to everyone else) is everywhere in the West. Not to mention denuding of the land.

this is called Tragedy of the Commons and is a result of public ownership of said land.

[theanimal]

Tragedy of the Commons results from no communication and strategy within a large space among its users. It can happen in both private and public ownership scenarios.

On a small scale, commercial fishing is a perfect example of the opposite of this. With no regulation or 3rd party management, there'd be no fish. Regionally this works. Globally, there's nothing set up, leading to tragedy of the commons.

[nestbuilder]

I would add air and water and the like are shared resources and for that very reason benefit from oversight as most individuals tendency is to pursue self-interest at the expense of the commons whether private or public. Whether ranchers graze on public or private land (or maybe we rethink the scale of the whole cow thing?) their practice impacts shared resources. This is true for much of human behavior and therefore the whole "get government outta my life until I am directly impacted then where are you" approach seems a bit short-sighted.